MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have no opening statement, so
I'll be happy to take your questions. I'll try to move it along
briefly today, because I know many of you are getting ready to depart
for the trip. So let us begin. Helen.

Q Is the President satisfied with the intelligence he got
before the war? Because now one Cabinet officer is saying that they
buried the weapons; another said they destroyed them; and another
official said they -- what is the President's view on all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is indeed satisfied with the
intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the
fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we
have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of
producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the
intelligence in that regard was right on target.

Q We go to war for two trucks?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q You would go to war from the finding of two trucks?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think it's anything to dismiss. Iraq
had, contrary to their protestations to the United Nations, trucks for
the purpose of producing biological weapons. They said they didn't
have them; they got caught -- proof-perfect that they had them.
The only use for those trucks is to produce biological weapons. And so
that's one item of it. And on the rest of all the intelligence, of
course, the President continues to be satisfied with it. He thinks
it's borne out.

Q But doesn't he have sort of a mix -- he gets the CIA,
then he gets the Pentagon special briefing -- special intelligence
group, and so forth. Do they all gibe?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me try to -- keep in mind, of course, that
under the statute you have a Central Intelligence Director. His
responsibility is to oversee all the various intelligence agencies.
You have the Defense Intelligence Agency; you have the National
Security Agency. There are a variety of agencies who, all under the
statute; there's a central intelligence source.

The President, per the way Congress created this, benefits from the
fact that you have different agencies which have different slices of
intelligence, who look at it, which provides for a varied point of
view, as they look at the areas of their expertise at intelligence,
and all adds up -- this is often referred to as a mosaic, where they
assemble the various pieces of intelligence they get, to paint as full
and complete a picture as intelligence can do.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think everybody who sat in that conference
room was aware of the provisions that were before it. That includes
Senator Lambert, for example, who -- Lincoln-Lambert -- who had
the provision put in in the Finance Committee, who voted against it
even with the provision put in. Everybody was aware in the conference
of what was in, what was out. So that was very well-known to all the
conferees, including to the White House.

In the end, the tax bill that the President signed yesterday
delivered tax relief not only for people who pay income taxes, but
delivered tax relief by eliminating 3 million families from having any
obligation to pay income taxes anymore. This is people at the lower
end of the income scale. Sixty-nine million taxpayers will benefit
from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. And, of course, for
people in the 10 percent bracket, they benefit the most from it, and
that's the lowest-income workers in America. Twenty-five million
children -- families with children will now benefit from the child
credit.

Q What was the President's reaction when he learned that a
significant number of people would be excluded?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well this has been a longstanding matter of policy
that deals with several of the technical provisions of the child
credit. What you always have to keep in mind in the administration of
the child credit is, does tax relief go to people who pay income taxes
and forgive their income taxes? Or does it go above and beyond the
forgiving of all income taxes and you actually get a check back from
the government for more than you ever owed in income taxes? And this
is part and parcel of the debate over tax relief. This certainly does
deliver tax relief to the people who pay income taxes.

Q But that's precisely what happened in this case. These
people will not get that $400. And they are arguably the people who
could most use it.

MR. FLEISCHER: Aha. But what they will get is they will pay
absolutely no income taxes, while people up the income scale --
even if they get a larger credit, still pay income taxes. And so what
happens is, there are people who, as a result of this agreement, will
pay absolutely zero income taxes. Now, there are going to be other
people who pay much more in income taxes. And that's where fairness
comes in.

Q But, Ari, isn't the issue here that the White House, playing
such a strong role in this conference negotiation, certainly saw to it
that two things happened, that taxes on dividends for the investor
class got reduced -- nobody was left behind there -- and that
the acceleration of the rate cuts for the highest earners in America,
those also go accelerated on the President's timetable. So that was
taken care of. But when it came to, now, a large group of people who
stand to get more of the government's money -- their money, as the
President says -- they're left behind in is.

MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind that when you say their money, if you
owe $400 in income taxes, and let's say you would get a $500 child tax
credit, if you only owe $400 in income taxes, you get the $400
forgiven, you actually get $100 back of other people's money. So by
actually forgiving all income taxes and then giving people money above
and beyond that, it's not the same as the way other people on the
income scale are treated.

Now, you mentioned the fact that the acceleration of income tax
rates took place at the various levels, including the higher levels.
That's only because, per the President's priorities, the 10 percent
rate was accelerated in 2001. In the 2001 tax act, the 15 percent
bracket was dropped immediately to 10 percent. All the other brackets
were ramped up over time, or their reductions were made over time. So
the 10 percent was a presidential priority enacted in the 2001 act.
The other rates remained higher, and that's why they could be
accelerated in this act.

Q Do you think people who are in this category, who earn just
above the minimum wage, who are watching what you say about this accept
the notion that this is just what happens in the administration of tax
policy and this is how the government does its business?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think all taxpayers appreciate the fact that
the income tax burden is too high. And for people who have had their
entire income tax burden forgiven, I think they're very appreciative of
the fact that they pay no income taxes in America and still benefit
from a national defense, which is paid from income taxes; they still
benefit from school programs that are paid at the federal level income
taxes. They still benefit from a host of programs that income taxes
help them in their daily lives; yet they pay zero income taxes. In
fact, they get back money from the Treasury which is in the form of
public assistance, above and beyond income taxes.

There's a whole other, larger group of Americans, tens of millions,
who still pay income taxes, who now will pay less income taxes as a
result of this tax relief. And that's why, in the President's
judgment, this is fair to all Americans. And I don't think the
American people look at it and they say, I'm paying absolutely zero
income tax and that's not good enough for me; I want to have more money
back from the government, even though I have been forgiven of income
tax obligations.

And under this bill, 3 million families will now pay -- 3
million additional families pay zero income tax. There is an
interesting trend in tax policy where a larger and larger percentage of
the country pays no income taxes.

Q Just to button this up, the President was satisfied with
sacrificing this area in order to get the compromise and ultimately get
the package, even though it would leave this particular group out?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said, he doesn't get
everything that he wants, and if this provision had been included, the
President would have signed it. But the conferees did make that
decision. The President would have signed it had it been sent to him.

Q You were a party to that conference, so it's not like it's an
"us" versus "them." You were a party to that.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm walking you precisely what happened.

Q So why did the White House conferees agree to drop these 11.9
million children from this benefit?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there were many decisions that were made that
represented compromises in order to get something done. At the end, it
still was a very close vote. You had the interesting position of a
senator who advocated for this position, got it -- on the Senate
Finance Committee -- and still voted against what she wanted. So
different members of Congress made different decisions, based on the
compromises that were made in order to still make progress. At the end
of the day, the President determined it was still important enough to
make progress, even though he was not getting everything he wanted in
this bill.

MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind, investors are across-the-board in
terms of income groups, include many senior citizens, whose only source
of income is their investment, because they don't have an income since
they retired. And that's aimed at creating jobs. And so there are a
variety of economic factors that go into the tax bill in terms of
giving it the oomph to create jobs, which is what this is about. And I
think economists can argue, they will differ about which provisions
help create more jobs. And that's a debate that will go on.

Q No, but you had to make a choice, and I just want to make
sure that you are saying that the White House agreed to make the choice
to leave these children behind.

MR. FLEISCHER: Many, many choices get made. For example, people
of different income levels don't even get a child credit. There are
many people who don't qualify because their income levels are too high
to even get a dollar's worth of a child credit, and they pay
considerable amount of income taxes. The President wanted to have a
zero percent dividend exclusion. He got less of a dividend exclusion.

There are many different factors that go into it. There's still
the permanent issue. These tax cuts were not made permanent as a
result of the compromises that were made. And so, as always, the
President has to make a judgment about whether sufficient progress is
being made toward the achievement of a good tax bill that creates jobs
and growth for the economy. In his judgment, this tax bill is a good
tax bill that creates jobs and growth for the economy.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think rewind the tapes, and you'll see what the
administration said before the war and you'll find a series of
statements, all of which are valid.

The concern as it was expressed repeatedly at the United Nations is
that when the United Nations was thrown out of Iraq in the late 1990s,
the United Nations reported that Iraq had not accounted for the
botchulin, the toxin, the VX, the sarin gas. They said, not accounted
for. They didn't say, locked and loaded. And we repeatedly cited the
U.N.'s words and said, not accounted for.

Q The President said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

MR. FLEISCHER: As the war was pursued, we, of course, had concerns
about whether or not it would be locked and loaded, and that's why we
had our forces in the defensive postures they were and with the
uniforms and the equipment that they carried with them. So it was a
result of their possession of it in a variety of forms, a variety of
facts that led the United Nations to conclude, and to vote 15-nothing,
that they had not provided adequate explanation of what was unaccounted
for that the U.N. knew they had.

Q But let me just -- once again, as chief executive, does
he not have any concern about the quality of intelligence on this, as
he described it, one of the most critical security matters before the
country, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I described to you, when the proof came in
about what was known so far -- and I think there's going to be more
to learn as different people are talked to, as different documents are
looked at, as additional forces arrive for the sole purpose of looking
for the weapons of mass destruction and obtaining information from
Iraqi scientists, particularly mid-level officials -- what else
would those biological trucks have been for? Those biological trucks
themselves -- and as Secretary Powell pointed out at the United
Nations, it doesn't take a lot to produce a lot of deaths, that
biological weapons can be small in quantity and large in death. And
that's why the American people had a lot to fear about Saddam Hussein
developing these weapons, including biological weapons, which there's
now proof-positive that he had these biological mobile trucks for the
purpose of producing biological weapons.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's obviously real work. And the purpose of
the summit is for the President to take advantage of this moment and
exercise what, in his judgment, is his important personal
responsibility as the President of the United States, who can play a
very helpful role in bringing Israelis and Palestinians together, to
help them take concrete steps to implement the road map toward peace.

That's why he's going -- to look the leaders of the Israelis in
the eye and to look the leaders of the Palestinians in the eye and say
to them, you must make progress; you must implement the road map; you
must carry out your concrete obligations to Palestinian on security, to
the Israelis on the humane treatment of the Palestinians, and to --
a reminder that the vision is a two-state solution. This is serious
work.

Q Would he be satisfied with a statement that commits both
sides to implementing the road map? Would that be progress?

MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, implementing the road map is what this is
about, and there must be concrete actions that are taken.

Q What does he expect to come out of today's meeting between
Sharon and Abbas?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to make predictions about a
meeting that the United States is not a direct participant in. We will
see. The meeting is supposed to be taking place anytime now, Eastern
time, and we'll try to get a report after the meeting and see.

Q What does he hope will come out of the meeting?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what the President hopes will come out of the
meeting is a willingness of the Israelis and the Palestinians to work
together to implement the road map, meaning the Palestinians taking
measurable concrete actions to dismantle terrorism; the Israelis taking
measurable concrete actions to help improve the humanity, the
conditions of the Palestinian people; and a reaffirmation by both
parties toward the vision of a two-state solution, as the road map lays
out.

Q President Mubarak is reported to have called Yasser Arafat
today to discuss the peace process. You've made very clear that the
President doesn't want Yasser Arafat representing the interests of the
Palestinian people in the peace process. Can you really keep him out
of playing a critical role, given the way other Arab nations are likely
to deal with him throughout this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, there's an important meeting about to take
place, and the proper representatives of the Palestinian people will be
there, who believe in peace and are espousing the cause of peace. I
don't know every detail of every conversation an Arab leader has with
Yasser Arafat. But I don't know that you have reason to believe that
their message to Yasser Arafat is any way inconsistent with America's
message about working to achieve peace and the importance of not
interfering with the peace process.

Q So is your message that -- to the Egyptians and other
Arab nations to tell Arafat to butt out?

MR. FLEISCHER: I can't speak for what their message is. I think
you need to ask them.

Q If I could have one other. The President is going to meet
with his Chinese counterpart --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think this will be another important piece
in making a determination about the next way, the next step to proceed
in dealings with North Korea. The Chinese involvement in resolving the
North Korea attempt to nuclearize the Peninsula is a very important
involvement. The President wants to talk to the new Chinese President
about this, and China is committed to this process -- that's
important -- and the President wants to talk to them about that. I
think there will be a number of other issues that come up with China,
as well, including trade and some other matters.

Q Ari, two quick questions. One, last week was the 10th
anniversary of the largest caucus on India in the U.S. Congress. And
163 members from the both parties, Democrats and Republicans were
there -- I mean are the members of the caucus. Now both parties on
calling on the administration, that they should pay more attention to
the world's largest democracy, India. And also time has come for the
administration to fight against terrorism into India, in the -- the
terrorism in Kashmir. Do you have any comments? And also where do
you -- where would the President put today the relations, really,
between the world's two biggest, powerful democracies?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, relations between the United States and India
are very good. And in terms of the commitment of this administration
to India and to peace and stability and to the reduction of terrorism,
I think you have seen so many recent positive developments between
India and Pakistan that are, in part, the result of America's active
diplomacy in the region. Deputy Secretary Armitage's recent trip to
the region is one small piece of that. Many others have been
participating in that effort. So this is an ongoing issue of the top
priority levels of the American government.

Q Back to the child tax credit. You said the President didn't
get everything he wanted. Just to be clear, in his initial proposal,
the $726-billion package, he did not propose that this group earning
between $10,000 and $26,000 would get the increase in the child tax
credit. Is that correct?

MR. FLEISCHER: The 1997 tax act that is the basis for all this
legislation applied the tax credit against income taxes, not against
payroll taxes. In 2001, the President signed legislation, and
supported it, that would, for the first time, have a small application
of it to the payroll taxes. That allowed for an increase to kick in in
2005. That was part of the President's budget, and the President
supported that increase in his budget.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, that's an erroneous report. There's nobody at
Treasury who was involved in this. I think there may have been some
retired people, people who left Treasury, who had some thoughts. But
we agree with their thoughts. If you take a look at President Bush's
own budget, you'll find in the budget President Bush submitted to the
Congress, the President warned about these long-term structural
deficits -- it was a chapter called, "The Real Fiscal Danger"
-- on page 31 of the President's own budget where he warned that
Social Security and Medicare and the nation's entitlement programs are
creating a tremendous burden of debt on the next generation of
Americans, which is why entitlement reform is so necessary.

This is why the President wants to create a system of social
security based on personal accounts on a voluntary basis, to relieve
that crushing debt. There is no question that Social Security and
Medicare and the nation's entitlement programs are going to present
next generations with a crushing debt burden, unless policymakers work
seriously to reform those programs.

Q So just to be clear, the Treasury Department did not
commission that study?

MR. FLEISCHER: You can talk to Treasury about it, but my
understanding is there is nothing like this underway at Treasury, and
nobody working at Treasury has been working on this. There may have
been some people in a private capacity outside of the Treasury
Department who worked on various projects, but those are not federal
employees.

Q On the child credit, you've given that very elaborate
explanation, but at the end of the day, there's -- the perception
seems to linger that this is an administration study. At the top, it
tends to favor the haves, as opposed to the have-nots. And is this a
concern that the White House has in light of --

MR. FLEISCHER: This administration treats taxpayers fairly. This
administration treats taxpayers right. And this administration
recognizes that people who pay income taxes should receive income tax
relief, and that when you reach a point where people pay absolutely
zero in income taxes, you're being very fair to all income taxpayers.

Now, there may be some who argue that after somebody actually pays
zero in income tax, other taxpayers have a responsibility to transfer
more of their income to people who pay no income taxes. And that's an
argument that some people might want to make, that in the end it's a
redistribution of income, that is public assistance, above and beyond
what people pay in their income taxes.

But this administration has been very fair about providing relief
at the lower-income end of the scale. After all, 3 million people now
pay no income taxes. This administration lowered the 15 percent
bracket to 10 percent, all of which predominantly helps people at the
low end.

Go ahead, Bill.

Q You're talking about taxpayers here. You're not talking
about people who don't pay taxes.

MR. FLEISCHER: Income taxes, I said.

Q Well, but the tax credit only applies to people who pay
taxes, both payroll and income.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was designed in 1997 as an offset to income
taxes. There's a small portion that offsets payroll, but it is
designed as an income tax credit. That's what the child credit is, to
offset income taxes.

Q But these are the people who it was designed to benefit, the
people who pay those taxes.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. And that's why it's benefiting
everybody, to the point where many in society are absolutely forgiven
from paying any income taxes, and others will receive a child credit,
and therefore, pay less income taxes, but they will still pay income
taxes.

Q The point of this discourse seems to be there are people who
are not receiving that benefit as a result of the change that was made
in conference.

MR. FLEISCHER: Many people would say that if you're paying no
income taxes at all, you received a lot of benefit.

Q You and Condi and others talked about conditions permitting
for the three-way summit to go forward. Is there something in today's
meeting between Sharon and Prime Minister Abbas that creates the
conditions for the three-way summit with President Bush to go forward?

MR. FLEISCHER: All signals are go. The same phrase applies,
conditions permitting. All -- conditions are permitting; all
signals are go.

Q Can you clarify for us at all what "conditions permitting"
means?

MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing different than I said yesterday.

Q I wasn't sure what you meant yesterday either.

MR. FLEISCHER: Dr. Rice and I said the same thing yesterday, about
the responsibility of the parties -- and you may quote her --
the responsibility of the parties to work toward peace.

Q There's a lot of talk that Hamas may, in fact, be willing to
consider a cease-fire. What does the administration make of that? How
big a step would that be?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what's important is for the Palestinian
Authority to move immediately to completely disarm and dismantle those
groups that oppose a two-state solution and employ terror and violence
in order to achieve their aims. Should the Palestinians declare a
cease-fire, it must be accompanied by parallel steps to disarm and
dismantle terrorists and terrorist infrastructure.

Q We're talking about one of the terrorist groups, itself; not
the Palestinian Authority as a whole, but actually one of the terrorist
groups that has, in many cases, actually undermined efforts to --

MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why the negotiations and the work with
the Palestinian Authority, because they have these responsibilities.

Q Ari, two questions. Again, going back to what Jim brought
up, "conditions permitting." It's been like a history in the Middle
East, anytime something major is about to take place, terrorist acts
take place, and usually, major terrorist actions. Would this be
involving the question, "conditions permitting," if something major in
terrorism occurs?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I just said, all systems are go. The
conditions are permitting. And I think unless -- in the event,
something would change that, you will know it. But all systems are
go. And if you have a hypothetical, if something becomes real later,
we'll deal with it if it becomes real later. But what's real now is
the meeting is moving forward.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said on the Abraham Lincoln,
there are dangers that remain still in Iraq. There are still
battlefields in Iraq. The President declared that the major
hostilities are over. He did not say that there was an end to the
violence in Iraq, because much of this was foreseeable because there
are still enemies inside Iraq who are loyal to Saddam Hussein, who are
fighting the coalition. And that's why the coalition is there,
dedicated to the mission of achieving security and carrying out their
efforts against remaining pockets of resistance.

Q Ari, on the -- you say -- going back to the child tax
credit -- you say the President would have signed it into law if it
had been in the bill. Does that mean that he endorses it and would
like to see it become law?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I've been asked many questions about what the
President will do next, because there are other things the President
did not get in this bill that he would have signed into law. And my
answer remains the same, that there will be future budgets. I'm not
going to predict everything that's in those budgets.

Q So he's not necessarily endorsing it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Just -- there will come a day when other
budgets are proposed, and I'm not going to predict everything that's in
those budgets.

MR. FLEISCHER: I checked I with Treasury and they say that's
absolutely not true.

Q Ari, back on the child tax credit, just talking about what
the President believes --

MR. FLEISCHER: You don't have to say back on, you can say
continuing on.

Q That's right. What does the President think would be a
greater stimulus to the economy, just in pure economic terms, giving
more money back to the investor class, or giving money directly to
lower-income working people who might spend that money immediately on
goods?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President views it as a combination of
both.

Q If you had to compare those two options, which one serves as
a greater stimulus to the economy?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the point has arrived where the bill is law
as a result of a good compromise that was achieved that allowed this to
pass into law.

Q I'm asking you, Ari, about the President's philosophy, his
economic philosophy, and what serves as a greater stimulus to the
economy.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think, frankly, if you talk to the European
leaders that he's meeting with, they just don't view it that way. This
is about making progress as members of the G8 on issues that unite us.
And I think that the time has moved beyond us, whether there were
recriminations or disagreements about previous issues. And for the
U.N., we all know now we all are moving together in a unanimous fashion
on the reconstruction of Iraq. So I just don't think this has to do
with fence-mending. This has to do with working together to move
forward.

Q You don't think that there's bitterness left -- this is
his first trip to Europe since the Iraq war, where there was huge
demonstrations in the streets. And even if some of the European
leaders were undecided --

MR. FLEISCHER: One thing I've noticed about European trips, and
especially trade summits and EU meetings, it doesn't matter if the
President is there or not there, there are hundreds of thousands of
people in the streets. This is just the nature sometimes of these
meetings. Sometimes it's aimed at the President; other times it's
aimed at the European leaders themselves.

Q So you don't think there's any lingering bitterness that the
President needs to try to work to ameliorate?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is going to work to bring
people together around the agenda that he has outlined, that he's going
to talk about in Poland, and that he's going to demonstrate at the G8,
which is America's work -- and we hope the world will work with
us -- to help alleviate poverty, to help reduce famine, to help
provide relief for AIDS. And he goes to Europe armed with substantial
accomplishments where the American taxpayer is leading the way to help
the suffering, reduce the suffering around the world.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, the President has met repeatedly,
on numerous occasions with Arab leaders, summit meetings, one-on-one
meetings; with Prime Minister Sharon. Many of those meetings are here
at the White House.

Q Not in the same context.

MR. FLEISCHER: It's all the same context. It's all the context of
how do you achieve peace in the Middle East and gathering ideas. I
submit to you that this meeting could not even be taking place if it
was not for the success of the meetings that the President had with
these Arab leaders, with Prime Minister Sharon in his conversations,
and his efforts in creating a new reformed leadership in the
Palestinian Authority. So it all is of the same context, creating an
environment now where people in the Middle East can sit down in a
different atmosphere where there is a chance of moving forward to
implement the road map.

Q But what kind of time has the President spent paying
attention to his predecessors' experiences? Either lessons learned,
positive or negative?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the most valuable lesson was
something that the President expressed in the June 24th speech where he
talked about there has to be a fight by the Palestinian Authority
against corruption and against violence, and that Yasser Arafat was not
committed to that fight. And one of the lessons is that Yasser Arafat
was not working toward peace -- that the previous President of the
United States was working toward peace, Arab leaders were working
toward peace, Israel was working toward peace, Yasser Arafat was
working in the opposite direction. And that's the most valuable
lesson, and that's why there is now a chance for peace, because you
have a new direction in the Palestinian government.

Q Ari, two questions. At the G8 summit, will the President
consider asking the other nations to contribute peacekeeping troops to
Iraq so that their soldiers can put their lives on the line, as have
the U.S., British and Polish soldiers?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are numerous conversations around the
world with a number of nations about their role in peacekeeping in
Iraq. As you know, Poland is leading an effort in one sector of Iraq.
I anticipate there will be other nations, as well, that join with the
United States, the United Kingdom and Poland and others in providing
troops and security for Iraq.

Q Will we ever see a day when the U.S. really reduces
dramatically its soldiers, so that the other soldiers can be there?

MR. FLEISCHER: Our position is very clear; that we will stay in
Iraq for as long as is necessary, and not one day longer. We are there
to help get the job done and to do it right.

Q Who decides?

Q Two questions today, please. Given that transfers of power
in the Middle East usually occur abruptly and sometimes violently, what
contingency plans do we have in place to deal with the implosion of the
government of Iran that some in the administration have suggested may
occur?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you go back to the President's statement of
July 12th, which is our policy toward Iran, and that is the future of
Iran will be determined by the Iranian people. And this is based on
the belief that people everywhere, including Iran, want to be free,
want to have a government that is respectful of their rights, wants to
have a government that allows them to express their views and allows
them to advance economically. That is our position, and I cannot
predict what every turn will take in Iran.

Q Well, if something happens abruptly, and considering --

MR. FLEISCHER: I just can't speculate, Jeff, about something that
hasn't taken place or might not.

Q Two questions, Ari. Since Prime Minister Sharon and the
Knesset have accepted the road map to peace with many strong
reservations, while Prime Minister Abbas contends that there can be no
such reservations, even as Yasser Arafat has expressed his strong
reservations about Abbas being at the summit instead of himself, ny
question is, is the President glad that the Israelis will not allow
Arafat to leave his Rumallah compound?

MR. FLEISCHER: I would just put it to you that the President is
looking forward to working with people who are dedicated to peace. And
that's why he is looked -- so much looking forward to this
meeting.

Q The AP reports from Austin that Governor Rick Perry signed a
defense of marriage law, making Texas the 37th state to outlaw same-sex
marriages and civil unions. Governor Perry said, "Like the vast
majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union
between a man and a woman." And my question: You would leave us with
no doubt at all that the President is like the vast majority of fellow
Texans?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President agrees with that position. That was
legislation signed into law by President Clinton. President Bush
supports it.

Q Thank you, very much, Ari. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Relax, relax, Lester.

Q It's a wonderful answer.

MR. FLEISCHER: You're not going on the Europe trip, are you?
(Laughter.)

Q I'll be watching your every move.

Q Ari, there are reports that the United States is using the
dissident group MEK to try and stage a coup in Iraq. Is that true?
And isn't the MEK on the State Department's terrorist list?

MR. FLEISCHER: I refer you the Department of Defense's statement
about what they are doing involving the disbarment of MEK in Iraq. Our
position on that is well-known. Nothing new there.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually, this will be their second direct
meeting. The President met with President-elect Hu earlier. Now he
will be meeting with President Hu, of course. They will have a
bilateral meeting. And, as I indicated, I anticipate they will talk
about North Korea, they will talk about trade, they will talk about
regional security. I think they have a rather busy agenda.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'll try to keep you informed as the meeting
takes place. I think they have a busy agenda to talk about the Middle
East peace process and the road map. If that's a topic that comes up,
we'll try to let you know.

Q Ari, six U.S. congressmen are to visit North Korea. Can you
tell us what will be the purpose of this visit?

MR. FLEISCHER: This is a visit that they are undertaking on their
own, not representing the President. And I would just refer you to the
congressmen and to the State Department on that.

MR. FLEISCHER: The terror threat level does get reviewed every
day. Given the fact that it was recently raised, it has been reviewed
on a continual basis to see whether that raise should continue in
place. Conversations are taking place about that. There's nothing to
report yet on whether there will be today or tomorrow. We'll see
later. So it is something that is being reviewed.

Q The federal officials are saying that it is likely to be
lowered as early as today. Is there anything you can say --

MR. FLEISCHER: As of this very hour, no decisions have been
made. It is being actively reviewed today.